ANGEL AK I

journal of the theoretical humanities volume 11 number 1 april 2006

[The mind] alone can discover the truth. But how? What an abyss of uncertainty, whenever the mind feels overtaken by itself; when it, the seeker, is at the same time the dark region through which it must go seeking and where all its equipment will avail it nothing. To seek? More than that: to create. It is face to face with something which does not yet exist, which it alone can make actual, which it alone can bring into the light of day. Proust, Swann’s Way 61

I

n order to consider the role that creativity plays in the thought of Gilles Deleuze, I commence with reference to one of the key terms in my title by drawing from a segment at the very ´ ´ end of Deleuze and Claire Parnet’s L’Abecedaire de Gilles Deleuze. Entitled ‘‘Z as in Zigzag,’’ the segment shows Deleuze concluding the eight-hour interview with evident relief on one of his most cherished topics, the spark that gives rise to creativity, thought and, indeed, all creation.
Reaching the final letters of the alphabet, Parnet says that X is unknown and Y is unspeakable [indicible] while Deleuze laughs at her quick dismissal of these letters, so they move on directly to the final letter of the alphabet: ‘‘Z as in Zigzag.’’ Parnet says they are at the final letter, Zed, and Deleuze says, ‘‘Just in time!’’ Parnet says that it’s not the Zed of Zorro the Lawman [le Justicier], since Deleuze has expressed throughout the interview how much he doesn’t like judgment. It’s the Zed of bifurcation, of lightning, it’s the letter that one finds in the names of great philosophers: Zen, Zarathustra, Leibniz, Nietzsche, Spinoza, BergZon, and of course, Deleuze. Deleuze continues laughing and says that Parnet has been very witty with BergZon and very kind toward Deleuze himself. He considers Zed to be a great letter that

charles j. stivale FROM ZIGZAG TO AFFECT, AND BACK creation, life and friendship
establishes a return to the letter A [animal] where they began, to the fly, the zigging movement of the fly, the Zed, the final word, no word after zigzag. Deleuze thinks it’s good to end on this word. So, what happens in Zed?, he asks Musing aloud, he sees Zen as the reverse of Nez [nose], which is also a zigzag. [Deleuze gestures the angle of a nose in the air.] Zed as movement, the fly, is perhaps the elementary movement that presided at the creation of the world. Deleuze says that he’s currently [1989] reading a book on the Big Bang, on the creation of the universe, an infinite curving, how it occurred. Deleuze feels that at the origin of things, there’s no Big Bang, there’s the Zed which is, in fact, the Zen, the route

ISSN 0969-725X print/ISSN1469-2899 online/06/010025^9 ß 2006 Taylor & Francis Group DOI: 10.1080/09697250600797815

25

An introductory zigzag 26 .’’ Then standing up.’’ Parnet quickly asks a final question: is Deleuze happy to have a Zed in his name. There is always a dark precursor that no one sees. in which this creative leap of sense and intensity proceeds. and that’s how the world was born. As readers of Deleuze’s and Deleuze and Guattari’s works are well aware. as though intagliated. . ‘‘and so we have finished. and once the journey [trajet] of the dark precursor takes place. He pauses and says. the supreme focal or transcendent point’’ defined by Nietzsche ‘‘in terms of a conversion’’ (174–75). and then the lightning bolt that illuminates. the grand Zed. Difference and Repetition. Someone explained. In Cinema 1. he recalls what he said earlier [in U] about no universals. So for Deleuze. Logic of Sense and Difference and Repetition]. a broken line which forms no contour by which form and background might be distinguished. ‘‘What happiness it is to have done this. in which Deleuze reflects on the relation between thought and subjectivity. the negative becomes the thunderbolt and lightning of a power of affirming. . . .creation. life and friendship of the fly. the empty square distributing the emission of singularities (50–51). putting on his glasses. He says that’s also what thought should be. The sage is the somber precursor and then the blow of the stick comes since the Zen master passes among his disciples striking them with his stick. but also the wisdom of the Zen. ‘‘invoking . and nomadism. insisting that what ensures communication between heterogeneous systems is ‘‘Thunderbolts explod[ing] between different intensities. this figure of the spark and leap of creation constitutes an important leitmotiv in an array of conceptual and discursive contexts. Deleuze says that when he conceives of zigzags. a primal tie that cannot be located’’ (120). . The Logic of Sense. but they are preceded by an invisible. where the power of affirmation constitutes ‘‘the ‘decisive point’ of Dionysian philosophy: the point at which . but rather aggregates of singularities. In the framework of Deleuze’s critical/clinical project. every system contains its dark precursor which ensures the communication of peripheral series’’ (119). he looks at Parnet and says ‘‘Posthume! Posthume!’’ [Posthumous! Posthumous!]. where one finds that the zigzag emerges as Deleuze refers to Worringer’s ¨ definition of Expressionism. He considers how to bring disparate singularities into relationship. and she replies ‘‘PostZume!’’ (Deleuze and ´ ´ Parnet. he discusses style in different texts. . . Nietzsche and Philosophy. that between two potentials occurs a phenomenon that was defined by the idea of a ‘‘dark precursor’’ ´ [precurseur sombre]. . and there is the world. but passes in a zigzag between things’’ (51). Likewise. L’Abecedaire) through these connections would include the following references: . a zigzag. haecceities. through the rhizome. In The Fold. . to which Deleuze responds. ‘‘Ravi!’’ [Delighted!] and laughs. he says. there is the dark precursor and [Deleuze gestures a Z in the air] then a lightning bolt. Midnight. imperceptible dark precursor. Deleuze says one can imagine a chaos of potentials. . and what philosophy must be. This somber precursor places different potentials into relation. Leibniz and the Baroque we find that the fold ‘‘moves not only between essences and existences. the blow of the stick is the lightning that makes things visible . the Body without Organs. he pauses and says. where the same element serves as the convergence point for the heterogeneous series of sense. . Here. which determines their path in advance but in reverse. It surely billows between the body and the soul’’ as ‘‘an extremely sinuous fold. the potentials enter into a state of reaction from which emerges the visible event. . to speak in terms of physics. so how can one bring these into relation? Deleuze tries to recall the ‘‘vaguely scientific’’ discipline in which there is a term that he likes a lot and that he used in his books [in fact. So. or bringing potentials into relationship. The two volumes of Capitalism and Schizophrenia. depending on the plateau.

The well-known final figure is 27 . Knowledge.’’ as that of ‘‘always com[ing] from the outside . the force to emit accelerated or decelerated particles in a floating time that is no longer our time. . to trace lines of flight . Deleuze adds a reflection on thinking’s status. or the Inside of Thought. on Hume and Bergson. it is a line of life that can no longer be gauged by relations between forces. that moves the ‘‘problematical unthought’’ toward what Deleuze calls ‘‘the emergence of one strange final figure. as an ethical subject . one that carries man beyond terror’’ (Foucault 122). and to emit haecceities that are no longer of this world . to double the outside with a coextensive inside’’ (Foucault 118). let me evoke the rhizome as the bifurcating movement of creativity. (A Thousand Plateaus 283) The internal citation in this quote. [with a language] in which style carves differences of potential between which things can pass.’’ an auto-affection. . unfolding. a spark can flash and break out of language itself .stivale insisting that One’s always writing to bring something to life. a conversion of far and near. to ‘‘the lash of the whip of an enraged cart driver. to free life from where it’s trapped. Rather than return to Deleuze’s earliest works. in appropriately telegraphic fashion. with its growing molecular speed. The repeated references both to Michaux and Herman Melville in Deleuze’s works occur within the context of his reflections on the fundamental elements of creation: To think means to experiment and to problematize. . where he concludes: ‘‘However terrible this line [‘of a thousand aberrations’. that ‘‘thought affects itself. neither innate nor acquired’’ (Foucault 117). notably the molecular power [given to perception] to grasp microperceptions. To think is to fold. a kind of zigzagging. even – particularly – when the sentence seems quite straightforward. I want to continue with a second line. . and [given to] the perceived. . and helps us move this series forward to Deleuze’s return to this same image of the whiplash at the end of his To this. the moment when desire and perception melt. sought to communicate the significance of this twisting line in Deleuze’s work. even over great distances. .’’ is to ´ Henri Michaux’s Miserable miracle (Miserable Miracle: Mescaline). In the field of knowledge as problem thinking is first of all seeing and speaking. Deleuze and Guattari juxtapose some fundamental intersections for perception and experience. . Deleuze makes the final link by suggesting. microoperations. with Foucault. On each occasion it invents the interlocking [entrelacement]. Here we reach an obvious connection with Deleuze’s study of Leibniz and the Baroque: not only do these reflections on thinking and subjectivity appear in the final section of Foucault entitled ‘‘Foldings. but thinking is carried out in the space between the two. in the interstice or disjunction between seeing and speaking. firing an arrow from the one towards the target of the other. ‘the whiplash of a furious charioteer’] may be. Then. (Negotiations 141) book Foucault. like ‘‘the lash of the whip of an enraged cart driver’’ shredding faces and landscapes. Nothing left but the zigzag of a line. . Through this concept. or unleashing a cry in the midst of visible things. that takes us through another referential series on the line of friendship in Deleuze’s Foucault. refolding’’ (The Fold 137). one of perceptions. a concept that was present certainly before the mid-1970s. by revealing the outside to be its own unthought element.’’ ‘‘a thinking being who problematizes him [or her]self. power and the self are the triple root of problematization of thought. but which takes on particular resonance during Deleuze’s collaboration with Guattari. like ‘‘the dice-throw. (Foucault 116) These opening references constitute a series of citational points on the line of zigzag through which I have. come to pass. .’’ Deleuze also argues for the Leibnizian status of our subjectivity since ‘‘what always matters is folding. There’s style [he concludes] when the words produce sparks leaping between them. A whole rhizomatic labor of perception. creating a flash of light in the midst of words. .

’’ where Deleuze discusses his fascination with how thought proceeds physiologically in the brain. if only we knew. depicted graphically and poetically in the drawing at the end of Foucault. (Foucault 118–19. and he admits that someone might object that he’s inventing nothing. The drawing is explicitly subtitled by Deleuze (in the French edition) ‘‘le diagramme de Foucault. the baker’s transformation: taking a segment of dough to knead it. here transmuted visually into a particular conceptual persona. and this carnal or vital topology. two points that he cannot see how to associate. and as a result of numerous transformations. relying on laws of probability. Deleuze wonders whether. i. suggest that with thought and the brain. so something happens. I shift from this line of perception and subjectivation toward a third conceptual linkage. He clarifies this: two extremities in the brain can well establish contact. He suggests that between a concept and a work of art.’’ at once Foucault’s diagram (of the process of subjectivation through thought) and a diagram of Foucault. He believes there are relations of probability between two linkages. So. liberates a sense of time that condenses the past within the inside. and that for him. there are some very. And then there are other cases that are much more complex perhaps. ‘‘l’espace du dedans’’). One would almost have to wonder. Negotiations. I refer again to ´ ´ L’Abecedaire. translation modified) pinball machine. His reflections continue as follows: Deleuze ponders the question of what happens in someone’s head when he/she has an idea. He describes the latter as full of fissures ( fentes) and suggests that these communications or linkages inside a brain are fundamentally uncertain. for example. that it’s the old question of associations of ideas. To develop this connection. you makes a number of transformations and after *x* transformations. that jumping happens constantly in a probabilistic regime.e. from ‘‘N as in Neurology. you stretch it out again. a story that physicists use.e. the questions. far from explicating itself through space. independent of distance and on the limits of a ‘‘living’’ [un ‘‘vivant’’]. when one looks for something in one’s head. two completely contiguous points are necessarily caused to be quite the opposite. of the ‘‘inside space’’ (another Michaux title. the intersection of the zigzag and affect that finds its culmination in Deleuze and Deleuze and Guattari’s final works. And there are distant points that. he admits. one would almost have to try to sketch a map of the brain. the transformation of thought within the zone of subjectivation caught in ‘‘a double movement’’ (Foucault 121). relying on laws of probability. How does it communicate inside the head? They don’t proceed along preformed paths and by ready-made associations. Deleuze sees this as the question of what makes us think something. he discovers them side by side. there might be this type of combination [brassages]. it’s like a 28 . and that these communications inside a brain are fundamentally uncertain. you fold it back over. enfolding inward. are found to be quite contiguous. for example. brings forth the future to the outside. its correspondences.creation. through discontinuity in which there is a gap that must be jumped. he says. how does one think? and what does thinking mean?. Something has struck Deleuze.. etc. and Essays Critical and Clinical. as a result of *x* transformations. that literally implicates. and creates a confrontation of the two at the limit of the living present. The line of the outside is but the carnal or vital twist. very distant from each other. the questions are intertwined. between a mental product and a cerebral mechanism. through electric processes of the synapses. Deleuze says that the brain is full of fissures [fentes]. very exciting resemblances. he says. To maintain the movement along different lines. when a concept is given or a work of art is looked at. For every inside-space is topologically in contact with the outside-space. what the continuous communications are and what the discontinuous communications would be from one point to another. What is Philosophy?. This ‘‘diagram-poem’’ folds into the whiplash of Michaux – the line of life carrying man beyond terror – as the surest sign of the folds of friendship between the two thinkers. life and friendship drawn by Deleuze at the end of Foucault to describe the processes of subjectivation. etc. i. When there are no ideas. the lash of the whip or flip of the lasso tail. you stretch it out into a rectangle.

are ones that emerged from a panel on Deleuze and Creativity presented at the University of Florida in April 2005 with ´` Felicity Colman and Helene Frichot and that conjoin with the lines developed above in a fold of friendship among intercesseurs.’’ and that ‘‘the artist creates blocks of percepts and affects. (L’Abecedaire) For Deleuze. a third element must be added. the importance of which is only beginning to be fully assessed. since ‘‘not only does the open house communicate with the landscape.stivale Deleuze says that he believes more in the future of molecular biology of the brain than in the future of information science or of any ´ ´ theory of communication. Deleuze develops these relations between microbiology and creativity in a 1988 interview in Magazine ´ ´ ´ litteraire (contemporary with L’Abecedaire). That ´ same month. art. or must [. harmonies of tone or color. For Deleuze. with the same feel for movement that music has . . the cosmos. I evoke three Deleuzian phrases to conjoin three perspectives on percepts and affects. These perspectives. but the only law of creation is that the compound must stand up on its own’’ (What is Philosophy? 164). even if only in a summary fashion. even when you seem to be on your own’’ (Negotiations 125). I draw from chapter 7 in which Deleuze insists that ‘‘the work of art is a being of sensation and nothing else: it exists in itself. literature. and cinema. the universe. original emphasis). Is that what friendship is. . fissuring it. through a window or a mirror. Consonance and dissonance. For example. on architecture. ¸ ˆ linking philosophy to friendship and music: ‘‘It seems clear to me that philosophy is truly an unvoiced song. new pathways. Of course. Deleuze speaks in similar terms of his friendships with Foucault and Francois Chatelet. but the shut-up house opens onto a universe’’ (A Thousand Plateaus 180). It’s amazing how Michaux does this. new synapses. affect and affection have a direct relation to life through their many corporeal effects. Reflecting there on how ‘‘philosophy.’’ whether ‘‘it [can] constitute the being of sensation.’’ or ‘‘Intercesseurs’’ in French. one of Deleuze’s earliest texts.[Leibniz] makes philosophy the production of harmonies. That is why architecture is the first of the arts’’ (What is Philosophy? 186). . since you are always ‘‘working in a group. provides the fundamental introduction to this semiotic apprenticeship. ‘‘is only a thermometer of a becoming’’ (What is Philosophy? 179). are affects of music and painting. that’s what philosophy calls into play as it creates concepts’’ (Negotiations 149). to this. in Liberation. from his writing on Spinoza onward. these connections are fundamental to the relationships with creativity and philosophy.’’ stating bluntly ‘‘creation’s all about intercesseurs’’ that must be formed. ‘‘Art begins not with flesh but with the house. Deleuze introduces the allimportant concept of ‘‘intercesseurs. the signs that each of us must read in actively engaging with logics of sense and sensation. in some series. and these produce. Flesh. Deleuze and Guattari reach this conclusion after having asked with reference to painting ‘‘if flesh is adequate to art. this clip. requiring a second structural element ‘‘to make the flesh hold fast’’: ‘‘not so much bone or skeletal structure as house or framework. New connections.’’ that ‘‘harmonies are affects. philosophy and art. folding. affective line. The culminating development of this line arrives in What is Philosophy?. they conclude. from 1988– 89. The entire second half of What is Philosophy? deals with the creative impulse in science. with Robert Maggiori. Yet.] itself be supported and pass into other powers of life’’ (A Thousand Plateaus 178). To build on the previous quote regarding harmonies. and science come into relations of mutual resonance and exchange’’ (Negotiations 125). is too tender.’’ ‘‘sensation the power to stand on its own within autonomous frames’’ (What is Philosophy? 179. a harmony embracing even dissonance?’’ (Negotiations 163). Proust and Signs. was anticipated by the well-known and almost aphoristic text from 1985 called ‘‘Mediators. twisting. in turn. This movement 29 . and to acknowledge this development. I start with the sentences from the middle of chapter 7 of What is Philosophy?. . insisting that ‘‘any new thought traces uncharted channels directly through its matter. which might pass through a long series of Deleuzian works. This turn brings my reflections on to the third.

a frightening task. . in certain ways. it’s not the task of the literary writer who cannot do everything at once. .H. is already in art: in bird songs. with Proust. what he earlier called ‘‘force’’ bears witness for life. . straightening up. Moreover. Deleuze asks. Deleuze suggests addressing the matter in quite simple terms: the great literary characters are great thinkers. but also from territory to deterritorialization’’ (What is Philosophy? 180–81). he/she is caught up in the problems of percepts and of creating visions [faire voir]. . a becomer.: bowing low. via the animal’s pure sensory qualities or expressiveness that. uniform color with the forces it bears. and make us become? (What is Philosophy? 181–82) great infinite plane of composition. is what makes painting abstract: summoning forces.’’ but that also require an ‘‘infinite symphonic plane of composition’’ (What is Philosophy? 185). dancing in a circle and lines of color’’ (What is Philosophy? 183–84). he argues. say Deleuze and Guattari. These habitats. or D.’’ As Deleuze and Guattari describe it. ‘‘Through having reached the percept as ‘the sacred source’. causing perceptions [faire percevoir]. the area of plain. Quite simply. be it the weak health of Spinoza or [T. expansion. there are cases like Victor Hugo when they are. drawing up figures with a geometrical appearance but that are no more than forces – the forces of gravity. germination. It corresponds to what Deleuze said earlier about the Deleuze and Guattari go on to call this intersection the complementarity of ‘‘the clinch of forces as percepts and becomings as affects’’ (What is Philosophy? 182). This is why great authors are not always in good health. Bartleby as well. becoming and territory: In short. populating the area of plain. but it happens that they communicate greatly since. In this way. finite melodic compounds and the 30 . . through having seen Life in the living or the Living in the lived. ‘‘the sonorous blocs [of] refrains. Sometimes.] Lawrence. in the process of reflecting on affects and harmonies. Heimlich and Unheimlich. uniform color vibrates. and the character takes on dimensions of the concept. life and friendship is like ‘‘a passage from finite to the infinite. architecture is the first of the arts. are there so many literary writers who do not enjoy good health? It’s because he/she experiences a flood of life [flot de vie]. most notably in ‘‘L as in Literature’’: Drawing a parallel between concepts in philosophy and the creation of percepts in literature. the novelist or painter returns breathless and with bloodshot eyes’’ (What is Philosophy? 171–72).E. And a philosopher creates concepts. then. He re-reads Melville a lot and considers Captain Ahab to be a great thinker. in his own way. to make the illegible force of time legible and conceivable). making the invisible forces visible in themselves. What Deleuze finds in common between ‘‘great literature’’ and ‘‘great philosophy’’ is ´ that both bear witness for life [ils temoignent pour la vie]. Is this not the definition of the percept itself – to make perceptible the imperceptible forces that populate the world. Deleuze and Guattari also consider the role in literature of creative fabulation through which the artist is transformed into ‘‘a seer. or literature. join up with percepts and affects through territorial counterpoints that constitute nature through ‘‘determinate melodic compounds. the vortex. in Messiaen for example. the small and large refrain’’ (What is Philosophy? 186). Deleuze discusses this at different points in ´ ´ L’Abecedaire. explosion. heaviness. combining ‘‘the two living elements in every way: House and Universe.creation. rotation. these territories. And this. Here I need to cite Deleuze and Guattari at length regarding the relationship of forces between color. refrains of posture and color . But why. first of all. so one must not say that all writers do not enjoy good health since many do. the concept is a character. affect us. and creating characters. territory and deterritorialization. clenches or cracks open because it is the bearer of glimpsed forces. and time (as music may be said to make the sonorous force of time audible. They cause us to think in such a way that a literary work traces as large a trail of ´ intermittent concepts [en pointille] as it does percepts. Yet they extend this reflection farther by linking art to ‘‘the animal that carves out a territory and constructs a house’’ or habitat.

the phrase of the septet in perpetual metamorphosis. Counterpoint serves not to report real or fictional conversations but to bring out the madness of all conversation and of all dialogue. Addressing why he feels cinema is a domain worthy of philosophy. Philosophers and literary writers are in the same situation. science. completely. Yet however this brain operates – via received opinion and associations or via creative extensions and intensities – it enables the ultimate struggle against chaos which is that of the scientist. in which ‘‘it is always a matter of defeating chaos by a secant plane [of immanence] that crosses it’’ (What is Philosophy? 203). Proust. Yet they also conclude that ‘‘the network (of correspondences between planes) has its culminating points’’ with each element on a plane calling on ‘‘other heterogeneous elements. that is. or sensations and no one of these thoughts is better than another. the world before and after man’’ (What is Philosophy? 189). refer[ring] back to a chaos rendered consistent. and philosophy ‘‘cast planes over chaos. the philosopher and the artist. for life and death. he states: ‘‘Cinema not only puts movement in the image. precisely because it puts the image into movement. unable to handle it so it breaks them. the song of the universe. so many links exist that one can see it as constituting ´ ´ somewhat the same enterprise. Deleuze argues. Again. The brain is the screen . never return. then. my translation. mental chaosmos’’ – and then to ask ‘‘what would 31 . or more fully. chez les Guermantes. ‘‘it is as if one were casting a net. . Flaxman 366). A final statement comes from a 1986 interview with Deleuze following publication of Cinema 2: The Time-Image. or rather the forces.’’ yet not without danger. The screen. . of pure time that have now become perceptible’’ (What is Philosophy? 189). Why is Chekhov broken to such an extent? He ‘‘saw’’ something. until appearing in itself with time regained. . develops relations of counterpoint into which characters enter such that ‘‘the plane of composition. Deleuze and Guattari thus follow the successive struggles that these disciplines wage with chaos. but generally. as he admits. can be the deficient brain of an idiot as easily as ´ a creative brain’’ (Deux regimes 264–65. For. the force. these are percepts at the edge of the bearable [du soutenable]. never stops tracing and retracing the cerebral ´ circuits’’ (Deleuze. or synthetically ‘thought’’’ (What is Philosophy? 198). (L’Abecedaire) Just as in the other arts. at the end of chapter 7. Deux regimes 264. emerges gradually from compounds of sensation that he draws up in the course of lost time. or rather endows the image with an auto-movement. the Houses are linked upon a transforming and absorbing ‘‘planetary Cosmos. literature consists in ‘‘relations of counterpoint into which [characters] enter and the compounds of sensations that these characters either themselves experience or make felt in their becomings and their visions. The brain. ourselves. my translation). it puts movement into the mind .’’ supporting series of refrains (like Vinteuil’s sonata) and variable sensations (like Odette’s face). the link between architecture. ‘‘everything com[ing] to an end at infinity in the great Refrain. . more than any other writer. at the edge of the thinkable. territory and literature comes to the fore: ‘‘Everything [in Proust] begins with Houses’’ (at Combray. . Earlier. even interior dialogue’’ (What is Philosophy? 188). ‘‘for better or for worse. So between the creation of a great character and a great concept. Cinema. but the fisherman always risks being swept away and finding himself in the open sea when he thought he had reached port’’ (What is Philosophy? 203). This happens frequently for authors. Deleuze and Guattari insist that ‘‘thinking is thought through concepts. they are seers.stivale complaint: these writers have seen something too enormous for them. become Thought. For art. we never recover. chez les Verdurin). and in some ways. Deleuze sees the active creative force of the brain as concomitant with the work of cinematic appreciation or depreciation. that’s where the unity is. There are things we manage to see. they say. visionaries. or functions. . these traits are manifested either positively or negatively. cf. allowing them to redefine the concept – ‘‘a chaoid state par excellence . which are still to be created on other planes: thought as heterogenesis’’ (What is Philosophy? 199). In each discipline.

this Satisfaction clearly emerges in Deleuze’s statement (cited above) about Leibniz ‘‘mak[ing] philosophy the production of harmonies’’ (Negotiations 163) since Deleuze suggests that friendship lies precisely in the accords. . . a thought someone has. and philosophy – as forms of thought and creation. or . and dissonant accords as well as on the joys and half-pains that they bring into circulation and integration – intersects in zigzag fashion with the emanation of signs and madness that Deleuze associates with friendship ´ ´ and what he calls in L’Abecedaire a perception of charm . This affect or dynamism – based on the variations of major. then.’’ for which ‘‘the brain is the junction – not the unity – of the three planes’’ (What is Philosophy? 208). . 32 . that exceed the force of those who go through them . Furthermore. ‘‘F as in Fidelity’’) ´ ´ Despite Deleuze’s insistence in L’Abecedaire that the rencontre occurs only with ideas and not with people. a musical Joy of contracting its vibrations. To some extent. of creation?’’ This question provides an understanding of ‘‘the best of all worlds. I attempt to pursue what William Connolly calls the need ‘‘to compose thinking [by] making the relays and feedback loops that connect bodies. . The zigzag whips across chaos through the latter’s ‘‘three daughters: these are the Chaoids – art. which can reappear. someone’s modesty. minor. in this way. but this term loses none of the resonance that Deleuze and Deleuze–Guattari have given to it under the influence of Spinoza. The choice of music as an example relates to Deleuze’s reflections in The Fold. Wouldn’t music be the great creator of affect? Doesn’t music lead us into these powers of action [puissances] that exceed us?’’ (cf. brains. Whitehead and Bergson: ‘‘in what conditions does the objective world allow for a subjective production of novelty.creation. (L’Abecedaire. and. in order to produce something new.’’ situating us at ‘‘the center of the cyclone where one can live and where Life exists par excellence’’ (Foucault 122). . science. that is. but intercessors. . This confrontation with chaos for better or for worse is what Deleuze means by ‘‘a line of life that carries the subject beyond terror. which can attract them. (79) A common question faced Leibniz. I have tried to establish some ways in which the zigzag moves through Deleuze’s and Deleuze and Guattari’s thought via diverse processes that engage a broad array of concepts. no longer empirical. and which can be infinitely combined’’ (The Fold 131). or the movement of one perception to another] is not completed without the sum of perceptions tending to be integrated in a great pleasure. that create ‘‘dynamisms. a gesture someone makes. . an inside enfolded with an outside and then unfolding ever forward through processes of intercesseurs. of calculating them . but the one in which new creations are produced. the one endowed with a capacity for innovation and creativity’’ (The Fold 79). crystals or seeds of thought’’ (What is Philosophy? 69). For as Deleuze and Guattari argue in What is Philosophy?. It’s these kinds of charm that extend all the way into life. psychological and social determinations. which can pass into other accords. becomings that overflow [debordent] him or her who goes through them. ‘‘affects are ´ becomings. whether perfect or dissonant. even if in oblique fashion. and culture exceedingly dense’’ (20).’’ ‘‘not the one that reproduces the eternal. The zigzag. . ‘‘it is thought itself that requires the thinker to be a friend so that thought is divided up within itself and can be exercised . life and friendship thinking be if it did not constantly confront chaos?’’ (What is Philosophy? 208). and this is how someone becomes ´ ´ the friend of another. also Negotiations 162–63). his teaching and engagement with students suggest that charm and thought have a mutual resonance. As Deleuze says ´ ´ in L’Abecedaire (‘‘I as in Idea’’). where he argues that for Leibniz this becoming [appetite. even before the thought is meaningful [signifiante]. still less abstractions. a Satisfaction with which the monad fills itself when it expresses the world. I have adopted the usage of affect that Deleuze and Guattari deploy in What is Philosophy? in relation to the arts. into its vital roots. Leibniz and the Baroque. . .

Tom Conley.1989. Gregory (ed. Mark Lester and Charles Stivale. Trans. Culture. of the ‘‘in-between’’ of the fold that is the juxtaposition of thought and unthought. ¤ Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P.Gilles. affect and the brain. 2002. Marcel. Paris: Gallimard. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P. Brian Massumi. Ed. bibliography Connolly. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P. Scott Moncrieff and Terence Kilmartin. Deleuze.1990. Paris: ¤ Editions Montparnasse. Deleuze. Deleuze. Stivale Department of Romance Languages & Literatures Wayne State University 487 Manoogian Detroit.Trans.Trans. Deleuze. A Thousand ¤ Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. The Fold. Difference and Repetition.).1987 . New Y ork: Columbia UP.K. New York: Columbia UP. David Lapoujade. Trans. Trans. Deleuze. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P. New Y ork: Columbia UP. 2003. Essays Critical and Clinical.1994. C. MI 48202 USA E-mail: c_stivale@wayne. Flaxman. Deleuze. Speed. Gilles and Felix Guattari. Pierre-Andre Boutang. Miserable miracle: La Mescaline. ¤ Michaux. The Brain is the Screen. Deleuze. Smith and Michael A. ¤ Deleuze. Anti-Oedipus: ¤ Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Trans. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P. Gilles and Claire Parnet. Deux regimes de fous. Dialogues. Boundas. Deleuze. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P. Dir. 1993. Mark Seem and Helen R. What is ¤ Philosophy? Trans. Thinking. the rencontre. Sean Hand. Trans. Neuropolitics. 2000. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P. and the friendship conjoined to creativity. Martin Joughin. New York: The Modern Library. New Y ork: Columbia UP. Trans. Gilles. Gilles. Nietzsche and Philosophy. Hugh Tomlinson.Gilles. Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Robert Galeta.1995. Gilles. Proust and Signs. Gilles. Charles J. Paris: Minuit. Gilles and Claire Parnet.1998. Trans. Trans. Paul Patton. Deleuze. Negotiations. Richard Howard. Swann’s Way.1996. Constantin V. Ed. Textes et entretiens 1975^1995. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam.1988. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P. Deleuze. Trans. Robert Hurley.1977 . 2002.edu . Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P. ¤ ¤ Deleuze. Lane. New Y ork: Columbia UP. Henri. Leibniz and the Baroque.1997 . 2000. Gilles. Gilles and Felix Guattari.1986. Foucault. The Logic of Sense. William. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P. New York: Columbia UP. Gilles and Felix Guattari. Deleuze. Daniel W. Cinema 1: The Movement-Image. Gilles. Hugh Tomlinson. Deleuze.1972. Gilles.Trans. 1983. Gilles. Trans. L’Abecedaire de Gilles Deleuze. Proust. Deleuze. Hugh Tomlinson and Graham Burchell. Deleuze.stivale constitutes the fundamental encounter. Cinema 2: The Time-Image. Greco. Gilles.1994. art and life.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful